UC-NRLF 


nil     1 

ri! 

II 

II II 

ill 

III 

$B    503    Sfib 


yiwa 


|ed  by  the  Internet  Archive 
ir\lo08  wilhJjLincling  from 
Microsoft  Corporation 


is/creation'^tor 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 


PRESENTED  BY 

PROF.  CHARLES  A.  KOFOID  AND 

MRS.  PRUDENCE  W.  KOFOID 


WILLIAM     EWART    GLADSTONE 


THE 

Creation  Story 


HON.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE,  M.  P. 


««!» 


PHILADELPHIA 

HENRY  ALTEMUS 


Copyrighted,  1896,  by  Henry  Altemus. 


HENRY  ALTEMUS,  MANUFACTURER, 
PHILADELPHIA. 


54 


THE  CREATION  STORY. 


**The  risincT  birth 
Of  Nature  from  the  unapparent  deep." 

Far.  Lost.  B.  vii. 

IN  recent  controversies  on  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Scripture  record, 
much  has  been  thought  to  turn  on  the 
Creation  Story  ;  and  the  special  and  separate 
importance  thus  attached  to  it  has  given  it 
a  separate  and  prominent  position  in  the 
pubhc  view.  This  constitutes  in  itself  a 
reason  for  addressing  ourselves  "at  once  to 
the  consideration  of  it,  apart  from  any 
more  general  investigation  touching  either 
the  older  Scriptures  at  large,  or  any  of  the 
books  which  collectively  compose  them. 

But  there  are  broader  and  deeper  reasons 
for  this  separate  consideration.  It  is  sug- 
gested, first,  by  the  form  which  has  been 
given  to  the  relation  itself  The  narrative, 
given  with  wonderful  succinctness  in  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  and 
in  the  first  three  verses  of  the  second 
chapter,  stands  distinct,  in  essential  points, 

5 


M.?49^3^- 


^Ov-? 


6  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

from  all  that  follows  in  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  a  solitary  and  striking  example  of  the 
detailed  exposition  of  physical  facts.  For 
such  an  example  we  must  suppose  a  pur- 
pose; and  we  have  to  inquire  what  that 
purpose  was.  Next,  it  seems  as  it  were  to 
trespass  on  the  ground  of  science,  and, 
independently  of  investigation  and  of  evi- 
dence, to  assert  a  rival  authority.  And 
further,  forming  no  part,  unless  towards  its 
close,  of  the  history  of  man,  and  nowhere 
touching  directly  on  human  action,  it 
severs  itself  from  the  rest  of  the  Sacred 
Volume,  and  appears  more  as  a  preface  to 
the  history,  than  as  a  part  of  it. 

And  yet  there  are  signs,  in  subsequent 
portions  of  the  Volume,  that  this  tale  of 
the  Creation  was  regarded  by  the  Hebrews 
as  both  authoritative  and  important.  For 
it  gave  form  and  shape  to  portions  of  their 
literature,  in  the  central  department  of  its 
devotions.  Nay,  traces  of  it  may,  perhaps, 
be  found  in  the  Book  of  Job  (xxxviii.), 
where  the  Almighty  challenges  the  patriarch 
on  the  primordial  works  of  creation.  More 
clearly  in  Psalm  civ.,  where  we  have  light, 
the  firmament,  the  waters  and  their  sever- 
ance and  confinement  within  bounds  ;  a  suc- 
cession the  same  as  in  Genesis.  Then  fol- 
low mixedly  the  animal  and  vegetable  crea- 
tions, and  man  as  the  climax  crowns  the 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  y 

series  in  ver.  23.  So  in  Psalm  cxlviii.  we 
have  first  (1-6)  the  heavens,  the  heavenly 
bodies,  and  the  atmosphere;  then,  again 
mixedly,  the  earth  and  the  agents  affecting 
it,  with  the  animate  population  (7-10),  and 
lastly  man.  If  there  be  some  variation  in 
the  order  of  the  details,  still  the  idea  of 
consecutive  development,  or  evolution, 
which  struck  so  forcibly  the  intelligence  of 
Haeckel,  is  clearly  impressed  upon  the 
whole.  At  a  later  date,  and  only  (so  far  as 
is  known)  in  the  Greek  tongue,  we  find  a 
more  nearly  exact  resemblance  in  the  Song 
of  the  Three  Children.  The  heavenly 
bodies  and  phenomena  occupy  the  first 
division  of  the  Song ;  then  the  earth  is 
invoked  to  bless  the  Lord,  with  its  moun- 
tains, vegetation,  and  waters ;  then  the 
animate  population  of  water,  air,  and  land, 
in  the  order  pursued  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  and  with  the  same  remarkable 
omission  of  the  great  kingdom  of  the  Rep- 
tiles at  their  proper  place.  Then  follow  the 
children  of  Men  ;  and  these  fill  the  closing 
portion  of  the  Song.  The  most  noteworthy 
differences  (which,  however,  are  quite  sec- 
ondary, seem  to  be  that  there  is  no  mention 
of  the  first  beginnings  of  vegetation,  and 
no  supplemental  notice,  as  in  Gen.  i.  24-30, 
of  the  reptiles. 

But  also  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  which 


8  THE    CREATION  STORY, 

are  categorically  placed  later  in  Genesis 
than  vegetation,  precede  in  the  Song  any 
notice  of  the  earth.  Let  not  this  difference 
be  hastily  called  a  discrepancy.  Each  mode 
is  to  be  explained  by  considering  the 
character  and  purpose  of  the  composition. 
In  Genesis,  it  is  a  narrative  of  the  action ; 
in  the  Song,  it  i^  a  panorama  of  the  spec- 
tacle. Genesis,  as  a  rule,  refers  each  of  the 
great  factors  of  the  visible  world  to  its  due 
order  of  origin  in  time ;  the  Song  enumer- 
ates the  particulars  as  they  are  presented  to 
the  eye  in  a  picture,  where  the  transcendent 
eminence  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  they 
are,  and  especially  of  the  sun,  gives  to  this 
group  a  proper  priority. 

But  this  Creation  Story  may  have  an 
importance  for  us  even  greater  than  it  had 
for  the  Hebrews,  or  than  it  could  have  in 
any  of  those  ages  when  all  men  believed, 
perhaps  even  too  freely,  in  special  modes  of 
communication  from  the  Deity  to  man,  and 
had  not  a  stock  of  courage  or  of  audacity 
sufficient  to  question  the  possibility  of  a 
divine  revelation.  For  we  have  now  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  Book  of  Genesis 
generally  contains  a  portion  of  human  his- 
tory, and  that  all  human  history  is  a  record 
of  human  experience.  It  is  not  so  with  the 
introductory  recital ;  for  the  contents  of  it 
lie    outside  of,  and   anterior   to,   the  very 


I 


THE    CREATION  STORY,  g 

earliest  human  experience.  How  came, 
then,  this  recital  into  the  possession  of  a 
portion  of  mankind  ? 

It  is  conceivable  that  a  theory  of  Creation 
and  of  the  ordering  of  the  world  might  be 
bodied  forth  in  poetry,  or  might  under  given 
circumstances  be,  as  now,  based  on  the  re- 
searches of  natural  science. 

But,  in  the  first  place,  this  recital  cannot 
be  due  to  the  mere  imagination  of  a  poet. 
It  is  in  a  high  degree,  as  we  shall  see, 
methodical  and  elaborate.  And  there  is 
nothing  either  equalling  or  within  many 
degrees  approaching  it,  which  can  be  set 
down  to  the  account  of  poetry  in  other 
spheres  of  primitive  antiquity,  whatever 
their  poetical  opulence  may  have  been. 
Further,  the  early  Hebrews  do  not  appear 
to  have  cultivated  or  developed  any  poetical 
faculty  at  all,  except  that  which  was  exhib- 
ited in  strictly  religious  work,  such  as  the 
devotions  of  the  Psalms,  and  (principally) 
the  discourses  and  addresses  of  the 
Prophets. 

As  they  were  not,  in  a  general  sense, 
poetical,  so  neither  were  they  in  any  sense 
scientific.  By  tradition,  and  by  positive 
records,  we  know  pretty  well  what  kinds 
of  knowledge  were  pursued  in  very  early 
ages.  They  were  most  strictly  practical. 
Take,  for  example,  astronomy  among  the 


jQ  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

Chaldees,  or  medicine  among  the  Egyp- 
tians. The  necessities  of  Hfe  then,  as  now, 
pressed  upon  man.  We  may  say  with 
much  confidence  that  in  remote  antiquity 
there  existed  no  science  Hke  geology, 
aiming  to  give  a  history  of  the  earth. 
So,  again,  there  was  no  cosmogony,  pro- 
fessing to  convey  a  history  of  the  kosmos 
as  then  understood ;  which  would  have  in- 
cluded, together  with  the  earth,  the  sun, 
moon,  planets,  and  atmosphere. 

When,  at  a  later  date,  speculation  on 
physical  origins  began,  it  was  rather  on  the 
primary  idea  than  on  any  systematic  ar- 
rangement or  succession.  With  the  Ionic, 
which  was  the  earliest  school  of  philosophy, 
the  human  intelligence  was  mainly  busied 
in  contending  for  one  or  other  of  the  known 
material  elements,  as  entitled  to  the  hon- 
ors of  the  primordial  cause.  Nor  had  even 
the  Greeks  or  Romans  formulated  any 
scheme  in  any  degree  approaching  that  of 
Genesis  for  order  and  method,  so  late  as 
the  time  when  they  became  acquainted  with 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  through  their  trans- 
lation into  Greek.  The  opening  statement 
\  of  Ovid  in  the  "  Metamorphoses  "  is  re- 
markable; but  at  the  time  when  he  wrote, 
the  Book  of  Genesis  had  been  accessible  to 
educated  persons  in  what  was  then  the  chief 
literary  language  of  the  Romans.     There  is 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  jj- 

not,  then,  the  smallest  ground  for  treating 
the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  whether  in  the  way 
of  original  or  copy,  as  the  offspring  of  scien- 
tific inquiry. 

To  speak  of  it  as  guesswork  would  be  ir- 
rational. There  were  no  materials  for 
guessing.  There  was  no  purpose  to  be 
served  by  guessing.  For  a  record  of  the 
formation  of  the  world  we  find  no  purpose 
in  connection  with  the  ordinary  necessities 
or  conveniences  of  life.  Not  to  mention 
that  down  to  this  day  there  exists  no  cos-  . 
mogony  which  can  be  called  scientific, 
though  there  are  theories  both  ingenious 
and  beautiful,  which  apparently  are  coming 
to  be  more  and  more  accepted ;  these,  how- 
ever, being  of  an  origin  decidedly  late  even 
in  the  history  of  modern  physics. 

But,  further,  as  the  Tale  of  Creation  is 
not  poetry  nor  is  it  science,  so  neither,  ac- 
cording to  its  own  aspect  or  profession,  is  it 
theory  at  all.  The  method  here  pursued  is 
that  of  historical  recital.  The  person,  who 
composes  or  transmits  it,  seems  to  believe, 
and  to  intend  others  to  believe,  that  he  is 
dealing  with  matters  of  fact.  But  these  mat- 
ters of  fact  were,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
altogether  inaccessible  to  inquiry,  and  im- 
possible to  attain  by  our  ordinary  mental 
faculties  of  perception  or  reflection,  inas- 
much as  they  date  before  the  creation  of  our 


J  3  THE   CREA  TIO  N  S  TOR  V. 

race.  If  it  is,  as  it  surely  professes  to  be,  a 
serious  conveyance  of  truth,  it  can  only  be 
a  communication  from  the  Most  High  ;  a 
communication  to  man  and  for  the  use  of 
man,  therefore  in  a  form  adapted  to  his 
mind  and  to  his  use.  If,  thus  considered,  it 
is  true,  then  it  carries  stamped  upon  it  the 
proof  of  a  Divine  revelation ;  an  asser- 
tion which  cannot  commonly  be  sustained 
from  the  nature  of  the  contents  as  to  this  or 
that  minute  portion  of  Scripture  at  large. 

If,  when  thus  considered,  it  proves  not  to 
be  true,  we  then  have  to  consider  what  ac- 
count of  it  we  are  in  a  condition  to  give.  I 
cannot  say  that  to  me  this  appears  an  easy 
undertaking.  "  If,"  says  Professor  Dana 
with  much  reason,  "  it  be  true  that  the  nar- 
ration in  Genesis  has  no  support  in  natural 
science,  it  would  have  been  better  for  its  re- 
ligious character  that  all  the  verses  between 
the  first  and  those  on  the  creation  of  man 
had  been  omitted."  * 

But  the  truth,  or  trueness,  of  which  I 
speak,  is  truth  or  trueness  as  conveyed  to 
and  comprehended  by  the  mind  of  man; 
and,  further,  by  the  mind  of  man  in  a  com- 
paratively untrained  and  inf^mt  state.  I  can- 
not, indeed,  wholly  shut  out  from  view  the 
possibility   that   casual    imperfections    may 

*  "  Creation."  By  Professor  Dana.  Oberlin,  O., 
1885  ;  p.  202. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  j-, 

have  crept  into  the  record.  Setting  aside, 
however,  that  possibility,  let  us  consider  the 
conditions  of  the  case  as  they  are  exhibited 
to  us  by  reasonable  likelihood ;  for,  if  the 
communication  were  divine,  we  maybe  cer- 
tain that  it  would  on  that  account  be  all  the 
more  strictly  governed  by  the  laws  of  the 
reasonable 

In  an  address  *  of  singular  ability  on 
"  The  Discord  and  Harmony  between  Sci- 
ence and  the  Bible,"  Dr.  Smith,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Virginia,  has  drawn  some  very 
important  distinctions.  In  the  department 
of  natural  science,  and  in  the  department 
of  Scriptural  record,  the  question  lies  **  be- 
tween the  present  interpretation  of  certain 
parts  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  the 
present  interpretation  of  certain  parts  of 
nature."  f  *'  We  must  not  too  hastily  assume 
that  either  of  these  interpretations  is  abso- 
lute and  final."  **  The  science  of  one  epoch 
is  to  a  large  extent  a  help,  which  the  sci- 
ence of  the  next  uses  and  abandons."  Dr. 
Smith  points  out  as  an  example  that,  down 
to  the  early  part  of  the  present  century, 
Newton's  projectile  theory  of  light  seemed 
to  be  firmly  established,  but  that  it  has 
given  place  to  the  theory  of  undulation, 
**  which  has  now  for  ^{Xy  years  reigned  in  its 

*  New  York  :  Hatcham.  The  Address  is  dated  July 
27,  18S2.  t  ^^'^'  P-  3- 


J.  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

stead."  Hence,  he  observes,  we  should  not 
be  too  much  elated  by  the  discovery  of  har- 
monies, nor  should  we  receive  with  im- 
patience the  assertion  of  contradictions. 
Throughout,  it  is  probable,  and  not  demon- 
strative, evidence  with  which  we  are  deal- 
ing. There  should  always  be  a  certain  ele- 
ment of  reserve  in  our  judgments  on  par- 
ticulars ;  yet  probable  evidence  may  come 
indefinitely  near  to  demonstration ;  and, 
even  as,  while  falling  greatly  short  of  it,  it 
may  morally  bind  us  to  action,  so  may  it, 
on  precisely  the  same  principles,  bind  us  to 
belief.  What  we  have  to  do  is,  to  deal  with 
the  evidence  before  us  according  to  a  ra- 
tional appreciation  of  its  force.  It  may 
show  on  this  or  that  particular  question  the 
concord,  or  it  may  show  the  discord,  be- 
tween alleged  facts  of  nature  and  alleged 
interpretations  of  Scripture  ;  or  it  may  leave 
the  question  open,  for  want  of  sufficient  evi- 
dence, either  way,  on  which  to  ground  a 
conclusion. 

It  is  by  these  principles,  and  under  these 
limitations,  that  I  desire  to  see  the  question 
tried  in  the  terms  in  which  I  think  it  ought 
to  be  stated ;  namely,  not  whether  the  reci- 
tals in  Genesis  at  each  and  every  point  have 
an  accurately  scientific  form,  but,  Whether 
the  statements  of  the  Creation  Story,  as  a 
whole,  appear  to  stand  in  such  a  relation  to 


THE   CREA  riON  STORY.  j  r 

the  facts  of  natural  science,  so  far  as  they 
have  been  ascertained,  as  to  warrant  or  re- 
quire our  concludinc^  that  the  statements 
have  proceeded,  in  a  manner  above  the  or- 
dinary manner,  from  the  Author  of  the  cre- 
ation itself.* 

Those,  who  maintain  the  affirmative  of 
this  proposition,  have  by  opponents  been 
termed  Reconcilers;  and  it  is  convenient, 
in  a  controverted  matter,  to  have  the  power 
of  reference  by  a  single  word  to  the  pro- 
posers of  any  given  opinion.  The  same 
rule  of  convenience  may  perhaps  justify  me 
in  designating  those  who  would  assert  the 
negative  by  the  name  of  Contradictionists. 
The  recorder  of  the  Creation  Story  in  Gen- 
esis I  may  designate  by  the  name  of  Moses 
himself,  or  the  Mosaist,  or  the  Mosaic 
writer.  This  would  not  be  reasonable,  if 
there  were  anything  extravagant  in  the  sup- 
position that  there  is  a  groundwork  of  fact 
for  the  tradition  which  treats  Moses  as  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  such  a  sup- 
position, in  whole  or  in  part,  is  sustained  by 

*  See  the  attractive  paper  of  Professor  Pritchard,  in 
his  *'  Occasional  Thoughts,"  Murray,  1889.  He  says  on 
p.  261,  "I  cannot  accept  the  Proem  as  being,  or  even  as 
intended  to  he,  an  exact  and  scientific  account  of  Crea- 
tion," but  adds  that  it  **  contains  within  it  elements  of 
that  same  sort  of  superhuman  aid  or  superintendence^ 
which  is  generally  understood  by  the  undefined  term  of 
inspiration,'^ 


J 6  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

many  and  strong  presumptions,  and  I  bear 
in  mind  that  Wellhausen,  in  giving  Bleek's 
"  Introduction  "  to  the  world,  stated  it  as  his 
opinion  that  there  is  a  strong  Mosaic  ele- 
ment in  the  Pentateuch. 

It  does  not  seem  too  much  to  say,  that 
the  conveyance  of  scientific  instruction  as 
such  would  not,  under  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  be  a  reasonable  object  for  the  Mo- 
saic writer  to  pursue;  for  the  condition  of 
primitive  man,  as  it  is  portrayed  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis,  did  not  require,  perhaps  did  not 
admit  of,  scientific  instruction.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  could  not  but  be  a  reasonable  ob- 
ject then  to  convey  to  the  mind  of  man, 
such  as  he  actually  was,  a  moral  lesson 
drawn  from  and  founded  on  that  picture, 
that  assemblage  of  created  objects,  which 
was  before  his  eyes,  and  with  which  he  lived 
in  perpetual  contact.  We  have,  indeed,  to 
consider  both  what  lesson  it  would  be  most 
rational  to  convey,  and  by  what  method  it 
would  be  most  rational  to  stamp  it,  as  a 
living  lesson,  on  the  mind  by  which  it  was 
to  be  received.  And  the  question  finally  to 
be  decided  is  not,  whether  according  to  the 
present  state  of  knowledge  the  recital  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis  is  at  each  several  point 
either  precise  or  complete.  It  may  here  be 
general,  there  particular;  it  may  here  de- 
scribe a  continuous  process,  and  it  may  there 


THE   CREATIOM  STORY,  j^ 

make  large  omissions,  if  the  things  omitted 
were  either  absolutely  or  comparatively  im- 
material to  its  purpose  ;  it  may  be  careful 
of  the  actual  succession  in  time,  or  may 
deviate  from  it,  according  as  the  one  or  the 
other  best  subserved  the  general  and  prin- 
cipal aim ;  so  that  the  true  question,  I  must 
repeat,  is  no  more  than  this :  Do  the  prop- 
ositions of  the  Creation  Story  in  Genesis 
appear  to  stand  in  such  a  relation  to  the 
facts  of  natural  science,  so  far  as  they  are 
ascertained,  as  to  warrant  or  require  our  con- 
cluding that  these  propositions  proceeded, 
in  a  manner  above  the  ordinary  manner, 
from  the  Author  of  the  visible  creation? 

What,  then,  may  we  conceive  to  have 
been  the  moral  and  spiritual  lessons  which 
the  Mosaist  had  to  communicate,  and  not 
only  to  communicate  but  to  infuse  or  to  im- 
press ?  I  do  not  presume  to  attempt  an 
exhaustive  enumeration.  But  it  is  not  dif- 
ficult to  specify  a  variety  of  purposes  which 
the  narrative  was  calculated  to  promote, 
and  which  were  of  great  and  obvious  value 
for  the  education  of  mankind. 

First,  it  was  fitted  to  teach  man  his 
proper  place  in  creation  in  relation  to  its 
several  orders,  and  thereby  to  prepare  at 
least  for  the  formation  of  the  idea  of  rela- 
tive duty,  as  between  man  and  other  created 
beines. 


l3  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

Secondly,  it  presented  to  his  mind,  and  by 
means  of  detail  made  him  know  and  feel 
what  was  the  beautiful  and  noble  home  that 
he  inhabited,  and  with  what  a  fatherly  and 
tender  care  Providence  had  prepared  it  for 
him  to  dwell  in.  There  was  a  picture  be- 
fore his  eyes.  That  picture  was  filled  with 
objects  of  nature,  animate  and  inanimate. 
I  say,  one  of  its  great  aims  may  have  been 
to  make  him  know  and  feel  by  means  of 
detail ;  for  wholesale  teaching,  teaching  in 
the  lump,  or  abstract  teaching,  mostly 
ineffective  even  now,  would  have  been 
wholly  futile  then.  It  was  needful  to  use 
the  simplest  phrases,  that  the  primitive  man 
might  receive  a  conception,  thoroughly 
faithful  in  broad  outline,  of  what  his  Maker 
had  been  about  on  his  behalf  So  the 
Maker  condescends  to  partition  and  set  out 
His  work,  in  making  it  a  picture. 

But  He  proceeds  further  (and  this  is  the 
climax)  to  represent  Him  elf  as  resting 
after  it.  This  declaration  is  in  no  conflict 
with  any  scientific  record.  It,  however, 
implies  a  license  in  the  use  of  language, 
which  for  its  boldness  was  never  exceeded  in 
any  interpretation,  reconciling  or  other, 
which  has  been  applied  to  any  part  of  the 
text  of  Genesis.  But  it  draws  its  ample 
warrant  from  the  strong  educative  lesson 
that  is  to  be  learned  from  it ;  for  it  invests 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  jq 

both  with  majesty  and  authority  the 
doctrine  of  a  day  of  rest,  which  was  of  the 
highest  importance  to  the  higher  and  inner 
hfe  of  man,  and  which  the  daily  cares  of 
his  existence  were  but  too  hkely,  as  ex- 
perience proved,  to  efface  from  his  recollec- 
tion. 

I  contend  then,  thirdly,  that  the  Creation 
Story  was  intended  to  have  a  special  bear- 
ing on  the  great  institution  of  the  day  of 
rest,  or  Sabbath,  by  exhibiting  it  in  the 
manner  of  an  object  lesson.  Paley,  indeed, 
has  said  that  God  blessed  the  seventh  day 
and  sanctified  it  (Gen.  ii.  3),  not  at  that  time 
but  for  that  reason.  He  is  a  writer  much 
to  be  respected,  for  many  reasons ;  but,  in 
dealing  with  Holy  Scripture,  he  was  some- 
what apt  to  rest  upon  the  surface.  And 
now  we  have  learned  from  Assyrian  re- 
searches how  many  and  how  sharply  traced 
are  the  vestiges,  long  anterior  to  the  de- 
livery of  the  law,  of  some  early  institution 
or  command,  which  in  that  region  evidently 
had  given  a  special  sanctity  to  the  number 
seven,  and,  in  particular,  to  the  seventh  day. 

Man  then,  childlike  and  sinless,  had  to 
receive  a  lesson  which  was  capable  of 
gradual  development,  and  which  spoke  to 
something  like  the  following  effect.  It  has 
not  been  by  a  slight  or  single  effort  that 
the  nature,  in  which  you  are  moulded,  has 


20  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

been  lifted  to  its  present  level ;  you  have 
reached  it  by  steps  and  degrees,  and  by  a 
plan  which,  stated  in  rough  outline,  may 
stir  your  faculties,  and  help  them  onwards 
to  the  truth  through  the  genial  action  of 
wonder,  delight,  and  gratitude.  This  was 
a  lesson,  as  it  seems  to  me,  perhaps  quite 
large  enough  for  the  primitive  man  on  the 
facts  of  creation,  and  one  which,  when  he 
had  heard  and  had  begun  to  digest  it,  might 
well  be  followed  by  a  rest  for  generations. 
And  it  further  seems  to  have  been  vital 
to  the  efficiency  of  this  lesson,  from  such  a 
point  of  view,  that  it  should  have  been 
sharply  broken  up  into  parts,  although 
there  might  be  in  nature  nothing,  at  any 
precise  points  of  breakage  or  transition,  to 
correspond  physically  with  those  divisions. 
They  would  become  intelligible,  significant, . 
and  useful  on  a  comparison  of  the  several 
processes  in  their  developed  state,  and  of 
the  vast  and  measureless  differences,  which 
in  that  state  they  severally  present  to  con- 
templation. As,  when  a  series  of  scenes 
are  now  made  to  move  along  before  the 
eye  of  a  spectator,  his  attention  is  not  fixed 
upon  the  joints  which  divide  them,  but  on 
the  scenes  themselves,  yet  the  joints  con- 
stitute a  framework  as  it  were  for  each,  and 
the  idea  of  each  is  made  more  distinct  and 
lively  than  it  would  have  been  if,  without 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  ^i 

any  note  of  division,  they  had  run  into  one 
another. 

There  is,  however,  another  purpose,  not 
yet  named,  and  more  remote  yet  perhaps 
even  more  vital,  which  appears  to  be  power- 
fully served  by  the  Creation  Story  of  the 
Bible.  In  the  prehistoric  time,  polytheism 
was  very  largely  engendered  by  national 
distinctions,  rivalries,  and  amalgamations. 
By  a  ready  and  ingenious  compromise  each 
people  became  habituated  to  recognize  a 
deity  all-sufficient  for  its  own  wants,  but 
unconcerned  with  those  of  others.  In  the 
course  of  time  and  of  successive  change, 
many  of  these  deities  might  find  themselves 
inducted  into  one  and  the  same  thearchy,  or 
mythological  system,  such  as  that  of  Assyria 
or  of  Olympus,  and  sitting  there  side  by 
side.  When  this  happened,  the  polytheistic 
idea  had  reached  its  full  development.  But 
the  road  to  it  lay  principally  through  the 
erection  of  separate  thrones  each  for  its 
particular  national  organization,  and  through 
the  limits  thus  imposed  upon  the  earlier 
and  more  proper  conception  of  a  Divine 
Governor.  But  where  the  Creation  Story 
of  Genesis  was  received,  the  door  was  effect- 
ually closed  for  all  thinking  men  against 
these  coequal  and  purely  national  gods. 
And  how  ?  Because  the  God  of  Israel 
was  the  Maker  of  the  world,  and  of  all  the 


22  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

nations  in  it.  It  was  His  creation  ;  and  its 
inhabitants,  whether  terrestrial  or  celestial, 
were  His  creatures.  Thus  the  narrative  in 
this  great  chapter  was  nothing  less  than  a 
charter  of  monotheism ;  and  though,  in 
Israelitish  practice,  Baal  and  Ashtoreth 
might  find  their  way  into  popular  worship, 
and  spread  around  them  an  infinity  of  cor- 
ruption, the  lines  of  the  dogma  never  were 
obscured,  and  the  standard  of  authoritative 
reform  still  lifted  up  its  head  to  heaven 
from  the  first  day  of  idolatry  to  the  last, 
when,  in  the  Exile,  it  was  finally  sub- 
merged.* 

How  effectually  and  vividly  this  great 
idea  of  creation,  lost  or  dilapidated  else- 
where, was  impressed  upon  the  Hebrew 
mind  we  may  perceive  from  an  usage  in  the 
Psalms,  to  which  I  do  not  remember  a 
parallel  in  the  classical  literature.  The 
lower  orders  of  animated  creatures  are 
themselves  placed  in  a  living  relation  to  the 
Almighty.     "  The  lions  roaring  after  their 

prey,  do  seek  their  meat  from  God 

These  all  wait  upon  thee  ;  that  thou  mayest 
give  them  meat  in  due  season."  f  Nor  is 
the  boldness'  of  Hebrew  devotion  arrested 
at  this  point.     It  extends  to  the  inanimate 

*  For  the  further  elucidation  of  the  subject  of  this  par- 
agraph see  the  Postscript  to  *'  The  Creation  Story." 
f  Ps.  civ.  21,  27. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  2X 

world.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of 
God ;    and    the    firmament    shovveth    His 

handiwork Their  sound  is  gone  out 

into  all  lands,  and  their  words  into  the  ends 

of  the  world The  sun  cometh  forth 

as  a  bridegroom  out  of  his  chamber,  and 
rejoiceth  as  a  giant  to  run  his  course."  *- 
This  is  without  doubt  noble  poetry,  but  it 
is  also  nobler  than  any  poetry.  Mute  Na- 
ture is  instinct  and  vocal  with  worship,  and 
Creation  in  its  humblest  orders,  giving  a 
lesson  to  its  loftiest,  ministers  to  the  glory 
of  the  Most  High. 

In  order,  then,  to  approach  any  attempt 
at  comparison  between  the  record  of  Script- 
ure and  the  record  of  Natural  Science,  we 
must  consider  first,  as  far  as  reasonable 
presumption  carries  us,  what  is  the  proper 
object  of  the  scientist,  and  what  was  the 
proper  object  of  Moses,  or  of  the  Mosaic 
writer,  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 

The  object  of  the  scientist  is  simply  to 
state  the  facts  of  nature  in  the  cosmogony 
as  and  so  far  as  he  can  find  them.  The 
object  of  the  Mosaic  writer  is  broadly 
distinct ;  it  is,  surely,  to  convey  moral  and 
spiritual  training.  This  training  was  to  be 
conveyed  to  human  beings  of  childlike  tem- 
perament and  of  unimproved  understanding. 
It  was  his  business  to  use  those  words  which 

*  Ps.  xix.  1-5. 


24 


THE    CREATION  STORY. 


would  best  convey  the  lessons  he  had  to 
teach ;  which  would  carry  most  truth  into 
the  minds  of  those  he  taught.  This  ob- 
servation has  not  the  honors  of  originality. 
"  He  emphasized,"  says  Rabbi  Grossmann,* 
in  his  interesting  tract  on  Maimonides,  "  as 
very  proper  and  wise,  the  Talmudic  maxim, 
that  the  Torah  employs  such  diction  as  is 
likely  to  be  most  communicative." 

In  speaking  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  I  would, 
without  presumption,  seek  to  include  any 
divine  impulse  which  may  have  prompted 
him,  or  may  have  dictated  any  communica- 
tion from  God  to  man,  in  whatever  form  it 
may  have  been  conveyed.  With  this  aim 
in  view,  words  of  figure,  though  literally 
untrue,  might  carry  more  truth  home  than 
words  of  fact ;  and  words  less  exact  will 
even  now  often  carry  more  truth  than 
words  superior  in  exactness.  The  truth  to 
be  conveyed  was,  indeed,  in  its  basis  phys- 
ical ;  but  it  was  to  serve  moral  and  spiritual 
ends,  and  accordingly  by  these  ends  the 
method  of  its  conveyance  behoved  to  be 
shaped  and  pictured. 

I  submit,  then,  that  the  days  of  creation 
are  neither  the  solar  days  of  twenty-four 
hours,  nor  are  they  the  geological  periods 
which  the  geologist  himself  is  compelled 
popularly,  and  in  a  manner  utterly  remote 

*  P.  12.  Putnam,  New  York  and  London,  1890.' 


( 


I 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  35 

from  precision,  to  describe  as  millions  upon 
millions  of  years.  To  use  such  language  as 
tills  is  simply  to  tell  us,  that  we  have  no 
means  of  forming  a  determinate  idea  upon 
the  subject  of  the  geologic  periods.  I  set 
aside  both  these  interpretations,  as  I  do  not 
think  the  Mosaist  intended  to  convey  an 
idea  like  the  first,  which  was  false,  or  like 
the  second,  which  for  his  auditory  would 
have  been  barren  and  unmeaning.  Un- 
meaning, and  even  confusing  in  the  highest 
degree ;  for  large  statements  in  figures  are 
well  known  to  be  utterly  beyond  compre- 
hension for  man  at  an  early  intellectual 
stage ;  and  I  have  myself,  I  think,  shown  * 
that,  even  among  the  Achaian  or  Homeric 
Greeks,  the  limits  of  numerical  comprehen- 
sion were  extremely  narrow,  and  all  large 
numbers  were  used,  so  to  speak,  at  a  ven- 
ture. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  "  days  "  of  the 
Mosaist  are  more  properly  to  be  described 

as  CHAPTERS  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CREA- 
TION. That  is  to  say,  the  purpose  of  the 
writer,  in  speaking  of  the  days,  was  the 
same  as  the  purpose  of  the  historian  is, 
when  he  divides  his  work  into  chapters. 
His  object  is  to  give  clear  and  sound  in- 
struction.    So  that  he  can  do  this,  and  in 

*"  Studies  on  Homer  and   the   Homeric   Age,"  vol. 
iii.,  Section  on  Number. 


26  THE    CREATION  STORY. 

order  that  he  may  do  it,  the  periods  of  time 
assigned  to  each  chapter  are  longer  or 
shorter,  according  as  the  one  or  the  other 
may  minister  to  better  comprehension  of 
his  subject  by  his  readers.  Further,  in 
point  of  chronology,  his  chapters  often 
overlap.  He  finds  it  needful,  always  keep- 
ing his  end  m  view,  to  pursue  some  narra- 
tive to  its  close,  and  then,  stepping  backw 
wards,  to  take  up  some  other  series  of  facts, 
although  their  exordium  dated  at  a  period 
of  time  which  he  has  already  traversed. 
The  resources  of  the  literary  art,  aided  for 
the  last  four  centuries  by  printing,  enable 
the  modern  writer  to  confront  more  easily 
these  difficulties  of  arrangement,  and  so  to 
present  the  material  to  his  reader's  eye,  in 
text  or  margin,  as  to  place  the  texture  of 
his  chronology  in  harmony  with  the  texture 
of  the  action  he  has  to  relate.  The  Mosaist, 
in  his  endeavor  to  expound  the  ordinary 
development  of  the  visible  world,  had  no 
such  resources.  His  expedient  was  to  lay 
hold  on  that  which,  to  the  mind  of  his  time, 
was  the  best  example  of  complete  and  or- 
derly division.  This  was  the  day ;  an  idea 
at  once  simple,  definite,  and  familiar.  As 
one  day  is  divided  from  another,  not  by  any 
change  visible  to  the  eye  at  a  given  moment, 
yet  effectually,  by  the  broad  chasm  of  the 
intervening  night,  so  were  the  stages  of  the 


THE   CREATION  STORY,  27 

creative  work  several  and  distinct,  even  if, 
like  the  lapse  of  time,  tliey  were  without 
breach  of  continuity.  Each  had  its  work, 
each  had  the  beginning  and  the  completion 
of  that  work,  even  as  tlie  day  is  begun  by 
its  morning,  and  completed  and  concluded 
by  its  evening. 

And  now  to  sum  up.  In  order  that  the 
narrative  might  be  intelligible,  it  was  useful 
to  subdivide  the  work.  This  could  most 
effectively  be  done  by  subdividing  it  into 
periods  of  time.  And  further,  it  was  well 
to  choose  that  particular  circumscription  or 
period  of  time  which  is  the  most  definite 
and  best  understood.  Of  all  these,  the  day 
is  clearly  the  best,  as  compared  with  the 
month  or  the  year — first,  because  of  its 
small  and  familiar  compass ;  and,  secondly, 
because  of  the  strong  and  marked  division 
which  separates  one  day  from  another. 

Hence,  we  may  reasonably  argue,  it  is 
that  not  here  only,  but  throughout  the 
Scripture,  and  even  down  to  the  present 
time  in  familiar  human  speech,  the  day  is 
figuratively  used  to  describe  periods  of  time, 
perfectly  undefined  as  such,  but  defined,  for 
practical  purposes,  by  the  lives  or  events  to 
which  reference  is  made.  And  if  it  be  said 
there  was  a  danger  of  its  being  misun- 
derstood in  this  particular  case,  the  answer 
is  that  such  danger  of  misapprehension  at- 


28  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

taches  in  various  degrees  to  all  use  of  fig- 
urative language ;  but  figurative  language 
is  still  used.  And  with  reason  because  the 
mischiefs  arising  from  such  danger  are  rare 
and  trivial,  in  comparison  with  the  force  and 
clearness  which  it  lends  to  truth  on  its  pas- 
sage, through  a  clouded  atmosphere  of  folly, 
indifference,  and  prejudice,  into  the  mind  of 
man.  In  this  particular  case,  the  danger 
and  inconvenience  are  at  their  minimum, 
the  benefit  at  its  zenith ;  for  no  moral  mis- 
chief ensues  because  some  have  supposed 
the  days  of  the  creation  to  be  pure  solar 
days  of  twenty-four  hours,  while  the  bene- 
fit has  been  that  the  grand  conception  of 
orderly  development,  and  ascent  from  chaos 
to  man,  became  among  the  Hebrew  people 
an  universal  and  familiar  truth,  of  which 
other  races  appear  to  have  lost  sight. 

I  may  now  part  from  the  important  and 
long-vexed  discussion  on  the  Mosiac  days. 
But  I  shall  further  examine  the  general 
question,  what  is  the  true  method,  what  the 
reasonable  spirit,  of  interpretation  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  words  of  the  Creation  Story  ?  I 
will  state  frankly  my  opinion  that,  in  this  im- 
portant matter,  too  much  has  sometimes 
been  conceded  in  modern  days  to  the  Scien- 
tist and  to  the  Hebraist,  just  as  in  former 
days  too  much  was  allowed  to  the  unproved 
assumptions  of  the  Theologian.     Now  it  is 


THE  CREATION  STORY. 


29 


I 


evident  that  the  proper  ground  of  the  Scien- 
tist and  of  the  Hebraist  respectively  is  un- 
assailable, as  against  those  who  are  neither 
Scientists  nor  Hebraists,  On  the  meaning 
of  the  words  used  in  the  Creation  Story  I, 
as  an  ignoramus,  have  only  to  accept  the 
statements  of  Hebrew  scholars,  with  grati- 
tude for  the  aid  received  ;  and  in  like  man- 
ner those  of  men  skilled  in  natural  sci- 
ence on  the  nature  and  succession  of  the 
orders  of  being,  and  the  transitions  from 
one  to  the  other.  Not  that  their  statements 
are  inerrable;  but  they  constitute  the  best 
working  material  in  our  possession.  Still 
they  are  the  statements  of  men  whose  title 
to  speak  with  authority  is  confined  to  their 
special  province;  and  if  we  allow  them 
without  protest  to  go  beyond  it,  and  still 
to  claim  that  authority  when  they  are 
what  is  called  at  school  '*  out  of  bounds/' 
we  are  much  to  blame,  and  may  suffer  for 
our  carelessness. 

I  will  now  endeavor  to  illustrate  and 
apply  what  has  been  said.  The  Hebraist 
says,  I  will  conduct  you  safely  (as  far  as 
the  case  allows)  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  words.  And  the  Scientist  makes 
the  same  promise  in  regard  to  the  facts 
of  the  created  orders,  so  far  as  they  are 
exhibited  by  geological  investigations  into 
the  crust  of  the    earth.     At   first  sight  it 


30  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

may  seem  as  if  these  two  authoritative  wit- 
nesses must  cover  the  whole  ground,  each 
setting  out  from  his  own  point  of  depart- 
ure, the  two  then  meeting  in  the  midst, 
and  leaving  no  unoccupied  space  between 
them.  But  my  contention  is  that  there  is 
a  ground  which  neither  of  them  is  entitled 
to  occupy  in  his  character  as  a  special- 
ist, and  on  which  he  has  no  warrant  for 
entering,  except  in  so  far  as  he  is  a  just 
observer  and  reasoner  in  a  much  wider 
field.  And  what  is  the  residuary  subject- 
matter  still  to  be  disposed  of?  Not  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  words.  The  He- 
braist has  already  given  us  their  true  equiv- 
alents in  English.  We  now  learn,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  "  whales  "  of  Gen.  i.  21  are 
not  whales  at  all,  but  that  they  are  aquatic 
monsters  *  or  great  creatures  ;  while  we 
learn  from  the  biologist  that  the  whale  is 
a  late  mammal.  So  geology  has  acquainted 
us  what  are  the  relative  dates  of  the  water 
and  of  the  land  populations,  and  has  sup- 
plied much  information  as  to  reptiles,  birds, 

*  R.  v.,  the  great  sea-monsters.  "It  seems,  on  the 
whole,  most  probable,  that  the  creatures  here  said  to  have 
been  created  were  serpents,  crocodiles,  and  other  huge 
saurians,  though  possibly  any  large  monsters  of  sea  or 
river  may  be  included"  (Bp.  Browne  in  /^^.,  "  Speak- 
er's Commentary  ").  Possibly  a  word  meaning,  whether 
wholly  or  inter  alia^  crocodiles  would  convey  a  pretty 
clear  idea  to  the  mind  of  the  Hebrews,  after  their  sojourn 
in  Egypt. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  ^^ 

and  beasts.  But  there  remains  a  great  un- 
covered ground,  and  a  great  unsolved 
question.  It  is  this.  Given  the  facts  as 
the  geologist  is  led  to  state  them,  given 
the  Hebrew  tongue  as  the  instrument 
through  which  the  relator  has  to  work, 
what  are  the  terms,  and  what  is  the  order 
and  adjustment  of  terms,  through  which 
he  can  convey  most  of  truth  and  force, 
with  least  of  incumbrance  and  of  im- 
pediment, to  the  mind  of  man,  in  the  con- 
dition in  which  he  had  to  deal  with  it? 
Let  me  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  only 
specialism,  which  can  be  of  the  smallest 
value  here,  is  that  of  the  close  observer 
of  human  nature;  of  the  student  of  human 
action,  and  of  the  methods  which  Divine 
Providence  employs  in  the  conduct  of  its 
dealings  with  men.  Certainly  I  can  lay  no 
claim  to  be  heard  here  more  than  any  other 
person.  Yet  will  I  say,  that  any  man  whose 
labor  and  duty  for  several  scores  of  years 
has  included  as  their  central  point  the  study 
of  the  means  of  making  himself  intelligible 
to  the  mass  of  men,  is  pro  tanto  perhaps  in 
a  better  position  to  judge  what  would  be 
the  forms  and  methods  of  speech  proper  for 
the  Mosaic  writer  to  adopt,  than  the 
most  perfect  Hebraist  as  such,  or  the  most 
consummate  votary  of  natural  sciences  as 
such. 


22  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

I  will  now  endeavor  to  try  some  portions 
of  the  case  which  turn  upon  verbal  difficulty. 
At  the  outset  of  the  narrative  the  relator 
says,  that  "  the  earth  was  without  form  and 
void'*  (Gen.  i.  2)  and  that  "  thespirit  of  God 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.'*  Nay, 
how  is  this,  says  the  Hebraist  ?  The  He- 
brew word  for  earth  means  earth,  and  the 
word  used  for  water  never  means  anything 
except  water.  But  according  to  the  beauti- 
ful theory,  which  has  during  the  last  half- 
century  won  so  largely  the  adhesion  of  the 
scientific  world,  and  which  seems  to  be 
mainly  called  the  nebular  theory,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  process  which  Gene- 
sis describes,  and  in  its  early  stages,  there 
was  no  earth,  and  there  were  no  waters.  Is 
the  relator  here  really  at  fault  ?  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  might  be  quite  as  easy  to  cavil 
at  the  phrase  nebular  theory,  though  it  be 
one  in  use  among  scientific  men,  as  it  is  to 
find  fault  with  these  words  of  Genesis.  For 
nothing  can  be  more  different  than  a 
nebula  or  cloud  from  a  vast  expanse  of 
incandescent  gaseous  matter.  In  truth,  we 
seem  to  have  for  our  point  of  departure  a 
time  when  all  the  elements  and  all  the 
forces  of  the  visible  universe  were  in  cha- 
otic mixture,  whereas  there  could  hardly  be 
any  sort  of  nebula  until  they  had  begun 
to  be  disengaged  from  one  another.     How 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  ^^ 

then  are  we  to  judge  of  the  use  of  the  word 
*'  earth  "  by  the  Mosaic  writer  ?  Is  it  not 
thus?  He  is  deahng  with  an  Adam,  or 
with  a  primitive  race  of  men,  who  have 
the  earth  under  their  eyes.  He  wants  to 
give  them  an  idea  of  its  coming  into  exist- 
ence. And  he  says  what  we  may  fairly 
paraphrase  in  this  way :  that  which  has 
now  become  earth,  and  was  then  becoming 
earth,  the  soHd  well-defined  form  you  see, 
was  as  yet  without  form  and  void;  epithets 
which  I  am  told  might  be  improved  upon, 
but  this  is  a  matter  by  the  way. 

So  again  with  respect  to  water.  The 
men  for  whom  the  relator  wrote  knew,  per- 
haps, of  no  fluid  except  water,  at  any  rate 
of  none  vast  and  practically  measureless  in 
volume.  What  was  the  idea  he  had  to 
convey?  It  was  not  the  special  and  dis- 
tinctive character  of  the  liquid  called 
water ;  it  was  the  broad  separation  between 
solid  as  such,  familiar,  firm,  immovable 
under  his  feet,  and  fluid  as  such,  movable 
and  fluctuating  at  large  in  space.  No 
doubt  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  word 
waters  is  an  imperfect  idea,  although  waters 
are  still  waters  at  times  when  they  may  be 
holding  vast  quantities  of  solid  in  solution. 
But  it  was  an  idea  easy,  clear,  and  familiar 
up  to  the  point  of  expressing  forcibly  the 
contrast  between  the  ancient  state  of  things, 


24  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

with  its  weltering  waste,  and  the  recent  and 
defined  conditions  of  the  habitable  earth. 
Could  we  ask  of  the  relator  more  than  that 
he  should  employ,  among  the  words  at  his 
disposal,  that  which  would  come  nearest  to 
conveying  a  true  idea  ?  And  had  he  any 
word  so  good  as  water  for  his  purpose, 
though  it  was  but  an  approximation  to  the 
actual  fact?  Dr.  Driver  describes  the 
scene  as  that  of  a  "  surging  chaos.'^  Aa 
admirable  phrase,  I  make  no  doubt,  for  our 
modern  and  cultivated  minds ;  but  a  phrase 
which,  in  my  judgment,  would  have  left  the 
pupils  of  the  Mosaic  writer  exactly  in  the 
condition  out  of  which  it  was  his  purpose 
to  bring  them ;  namely,  a  state  of  utter 
ignorance  and  total  darkness,  with  possibly 
a  little  rufiSe  of  bewilderment  to  boot.  An- 
other description  claiming  high  authority 
is,  an  "  uncompounded,  homogeneous, 
gaseous  condition"  of  matter;  to  which  the 
same  observation  will  apply.  Even  now, 
it  is  only  by  rude  and  bald  approximations 
that  the  practised  intellects  of  our  scientists 
can  bring  home  to  us  a  conception  of  the 
actual  process  by  which  chaos  passed  into 
kosmos^  or,  in  other  words,  confusion 
became  order,  medley  became  sequence, 
seeming  anarchy  became  majestic  law,  and 
horror  softened  into  beauty.  Before  cen- 
suring the  Mosaist,  who  had  to  deal  with 


THE    CREATION  STORY, 


35 


grown  children,  let  the  adverse  critic  try 
his  hand  upon  some  little  child.  I  believe 
he  will  find  that  the  method  and  language 
of  this  relator  are  not  only  good,  but  super- 
latively good,  for  the  aim  he  had  in  view,  if 
once  for  all  we  get  rid  of  standards  of  in- 
terpretation other  than  the  genuine  and 
just  one,  which  tests  the  means  employed 
by  their  relation  to  the  end  contemplated 
and  sought. 

I  now  approach  a  larger  head  of  objec- 
tion, which  is  usually  handled  by  the  Con- 
tradictionists  in  a  tone  of  confidence  rising 
into  the  paean  of  triumph.  But  let  me,  be- 
fore presuming  to  touch  on  objections  to 
particulars  of  the  Creation  Story,  guard 
myself  against  being  supposed  to  put  for- 
ward any  portion  of  what  follows  as  un- 
conditional assertion,  or  final  comment  on 
the  text.  The  general  situation  is  this. 
Objectors  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  dog- 
matically that  the  Great  Chapter  is  in  con- 
tradiction with  the  laws  and  facts  of  nature, 
and  that  attempts  to  reconcile  them  are 
futile  and  irrational.  It  is  thus  sought  to 
close  the  question.  My  aim  is  to  show 
that  the  question  is  not  closed,  and  that  the 
condemnation  pronounced  upon  the  Mosa- 
ist  is  premature.  For  this  purpose  I  offer 
conjecturally,  and  in  absolute  submission 
to  all  that  biology  and  geology,  or  other 


^5  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

forms  of  science,  have  established,  repHes 
which  are  strictly  provisional;  but  replies 
which  I  consider  that  the  Contradictionist 
ought,  together  with  other  and  weightier 
replies,  to  confute,  or  legitimately  to  con- 
sider, before  he  can  be  warranted  in  assert- 
ing the  contradiction.     But  I  proceed. 

How  hopeless,  is  the  cry,  to  reconcile 
Genesis  with  fact,  when,  as  a  fact,  the  sun 
is  the  source  of  light,  and  yet  in  Genesis, 
light  is  the  work  of  the  first  day,  and  vege- 
tation of  the  third,  while  sun,  moon,  and 
stars  appear  only  on  the  fourth !  Nay, 
worse  still.  Whereas  the  morning  and  the 
evening  depend  wholly  on  the  rotation  of 
the  earth  upon  its  own  axis  as  it  travels 
round  the  sun,  the  Mosaist  is  so  ignorant 
that  he  gives  us  not  days  only,  but  the 
mornings  and  the  evenings  of  days  before 
the  sun  is  created.  And  so  his  narration 
explodes,  not  by  blows  aimed  at  it  from 
without,  but  by  its  own  internal  self-contra- 
dictions. It  is  hissed,  like  a  blundering 
witness,  out  of  court.  Not  that  this  is  the 
opinion  of  astronomers  in  general.  Mr. 
Lockyer,*  for  example,  cites  with  appar- 
ent approval  a  passage  from  his  very  dis- 
tinguished predecessor  in  the  science,  Hal- 
ley,  who  says  that  the  diffused  lucid  me- 
dium he  had  found  disposed  of  the  diffi- 

*  Nineteenth  Century ^  Nov.  1889,  p.  788. 


THE   CREATION  STORY,  ^7 

culty  which  some  have  moved  against  the 
description  Moses  gives  of  the  Creation,  al- 
leging that  light  could  not  be  created  with- 
out the  sun. 

The  first  triad  of  days,  says  Professor 
Dana,*  sets  forth  the  events  connected  with 
the  inorganic  history  of  the  earth.  The 
second  triad,  from  the  fourth  day  to  the 
sixth,  is  occupied  with  the  events  of  the 
organic  history,  from  the  creation  of  the 
first  animal  to  man.  He  finds  in  the  gen- 
eral structure  of  the  narrative  a  consider- 
able degree  of  elaboration,  an  arrangement 
full  of  art.  The  passage  from  ver.  14  to 
ver.  19  is,  in  one  sense,  a  qualification  of 
the  order  he  thinks  to  have  been  laid  down, 
inasmuch  as  the  heavenly  bodies  belong  to 
the  inorganic  division  of  the  history.  From 
another  point  of  view,  however,  this  arrange- 
ment contributes  in  a  marked  manner  to  the 
symmetry  of  the  narrative.  The  first  triad 
of  days  begins  with  the  first  and  gradual 
detachment  of  light  from  the  **  surging 
chaos";  the  second,  at  the  stage  in  which 
light  has  reached  its  final  distribution.  The 
central  mass  had  now  assumed  with  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  regularity  (for  according  to 
heliologists  the  process  does  not  even  yet 
appear  to  be  absolutely  completed)  its  spher- 
ical and  luminous  figure,  after  shedding  off 
*  Dana's  •*  Creation,"  p.  207. 


^8  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

from  itself  the  minor  masses,  each  to  find 
for  itself  its  own  orbit  of  rotation.  Or,  if 
we  are  to  assume  that  the  photosphere  or 
vapor-envelope  of  the  earth  itself  had  ob- 
structed the  vision  of  the  sun,  we  have, 
further,  to  assume*  that  this  obstacle  had 
now  disappeared,  and  the  visibility  of  the 
sun  was  established.  So  that  hght,  or  the 
h'ght-power,  while  diffused,  ushers  in  the 
first  division  of  the  mighty  process;  the 
same  light-power,  concentrated  by  the 
operation  of  the  rotatory  principle,  and  for 
practical  purposes  become  such  as  we  now 
know  it,  is  placed  at  the  head  of  the  second 
division,  the  division  that  deals  with  organic 
life. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  subject  of  light 
is  the  only  one  which  is  dealt  with  in  two 
separate  sections  of  the  narrative.  The 
gradual  severance,  or  disengagement,  of  the 
earth  from  its  present  vesture,  the  atmos- 
phere, and  of  the  solid  land  from  the  ocean, 
are  continuously  handled  in  verses  6-10. 
Each  of  the  processes  is  summed  up  into 
its  grand  result,  as  if  it  had  been  a  violent, 
convulsive,  instantaneous  act.  The  avoid- 
ance of  all  attempt  to  explain  the  process 
seems  to  me  only  a  proof  of  the  wisdom 
which  guided  the  formation  of  the  tale.  To 
the  primitive  man  it  would  have  become  a 
*  Guyot,  **  Creation,"  ch.  xi.  p.  92. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  ^q 

barren  puzzle ;  the  wood  must  have  been 
lost  in  the  trees.  As  it  now  stands,  mental 
confusion  is  avoided,  and  definite  ideas  are 
conveyed. 

There  seems,  however,  to  be  a  special 
reason  for  the  introduction  of  the  heavenly- 
bodies  at  this  particular  place.  It  was  evi- 
dently needful  at  some  place  or  other  to 
give  a  specific  account  of  the  day,  or  com- 
partment of  time,  which  is  employed  to 
mark  the  severance  of  the  different  stages 
of  creation  from  each  other.  At  what  point 
of  the  narrative  could  this  account  be  most 
properly  and  most  accurately  introduced? 
In  order  to  answer  this  question,  let  us  con- 
sider the  situation  rather  more  at  large. 

The  supposition  is,  that  we  set  out  with 
a  seething  mass  that  contains  all  the  ele- 
ments which  are  to  become  the  solids  and 
liquids,  the  moist  and  dry,  the  heat  and  the 
non-heat  or  cold,  the  light  and  the  non-light 
or  darkness,  that  so  largely  determine  the 
external  conditions  of  our  present  existence. 
By  degrees,  as,  according  to  the  rarity  or 
density  of  parts,  the  centripetal  or  the  cen- 
trifugal force  prevails,  the  huge  bulk  of  the 
sun  consolidates  itself  in  the  centre,  and 
aggregations  of  matter  (rings,  according  to 
Guyot,*  which  afterwards  become,  or  may 
become,  spheres),  are  detached  from  it  to 

*  "  Creation,"  pp.  67,  73. 


40 


THE   CREATION  STORY, 


form  the  planets,  under  the  agency  of  the 
same  mechanical  forces;  all  or  some  of 
them,  in  their  turn,  dismissing  from  their 
as  yet  ill-compacted  surfaces  other  subaltern 
masses  to  revolve  around  them  as  satellites, 
or  otherwise,  according  to  the  balance  of 
forces,  to  take  their  course  in  space.  Mean- 
time, the  great  cooling  process,  which  is 
still  in  progress  at  this  day,  has  begun.  It 
proceeds  at  a  rate  determined  for  it  by  its 
particular  conditions,  among  which  mass 
and  motion  are  of  essential  consequence; 
for,  other  things  being  equal,  a  small  body 
will  cool  faster  and  a  large  body  will  cool 
slower;  and  a  body  moving  more  rapidly 
through  space  of  a  lower  temperature  than 
its  own  will  cool  more  rapidly ;  while  one 
which  is  stationary,  or  more  nearly  station- 
ary, or  which  diffuses  heat  less  rapidly  from 
its  surface  into  the  colder  space,  will  retain 
a  high  temperature  longer.  Owing  to  these 
perhaps  with  other  causes,  the  temperature 
of  the  earth-surface  has  been  adapted  to 
the  conditions  of  human  life,  and  of  the 
more  recent  animal  life,  for  a  very  long  time; 
to  those  of  the  earlier  animals,  and  of  vege- 
tation in  its  different  orders,  for  we  know 
not  how  much  longer;  while  the  sun,  though 
gradually  losing  some  part  of  his  stock  of 
caloric,  still  remains  at  a  temperature  inordi- 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  .^ 

nately  lilgli,  and  with  a  formation  compara- 
tively incomplete. 

Considering,  then,  what  are  the  relations 
between  the  conditions  of  heat  and  those 
of  moisture,  and  how  the  coatings  of  vapor, 
**the  swaddUng-band  of  cloud,"*  might 
affect  the  visibility  of  bodies,  may  it  not  be 
rash  to  affirm  that  the  sun  is,  as  a  definite 
and  compact  body,  older  than  the  earth  ?  or 
that  it  is  so  old  ?  or  that  the  Mosaist  might 
not  properly  treat  the  visibility  of  the  sun, 
in  its  present  form,  as  best  marking  for  man 
the  practical  inception  of  his  existence  ?  or 
that,  with  heat,  light,  soil,  and  moisture 
ready  to  its  service,  primordial  vegetation 
might  not  exist  on  the  surface  of  a  planet 
like  the  earth,  before  the  sun  had  fully 
reached  his  matured  condition  of  sufficiently 
compact,  material,  and  well-defined  figure, 
and  of  visibility  to  the  eye  ?  May  not,  once 
for  all,  the  establishment  of  the  relation  of 
visibility  between  earth  and  sun  be  the  most 
suitable  point  for  the  relator  in  Genesis  to 
bring  the  two  into  connection  ?  And  here 
again  I  would  remind  the  reader  that  the 
Mosaic  days  may  be  chapters  in  a  history; 
and  that,  not  in  despite  of  the  law  of  series, 
but  with  a  view  to  its  best  practicable  applica- 
tion, the  chapters  of  a  history  may  overlap. 

The  priority  of  Earth  to  Sun,  as  given  in 

*  Dana,  p.  210. 


43  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

the  narrative,  carries  us  so  far  as  this,  that 
vegetative  work  (of  v^hat  kind  I  shall  pres- 
ently inquire)  is  stated  to  be  proceeding  on 
the  surface  of  the  earth  before  any  relation 
of  earth  with  sun  is  declared.  It  is  then 
declared  in  the  terms,  "and  God  made  two 
great  lights"  (ver.  l6).  Now  the  making  oi 
earth  is  nowhere  declared,  but  only  im- 
plied. And  who  shall  say  that  there  is 
some  one  exact  point  of  time  in  the  con- 
tinuous process  which  (according  to  the 
nebular  theory)  reaches  from  the  first  begin- 
ning of  rotation  down  to  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  solar  system,  to  which  point, 
and  to  which  alone,  the  term  making  must 
belong?  But,  unless  there  be  such  a  point, 
it  seems  very  difficult  to  convict  the  Mo- 
saic writer  of  error  in  the  choice  he  has 
made  of  an  opportunity  for  introducing  the; 
heavenly  bodies  into  his  narrative. 

I  suppose  that  no  apology  is  needed  for 
his  mentioning  the  moon  and  the  stars  as 
accessories  in  the  train  of  the  sun,  and  com- 
bining them  all  without  note  of  time, 
although  their  several  **  makings  "  may  have 
proceeded  at  different  speeds.  But  here 
again  we  find  exhibited  that  principle  of 
relativity  to  man  and  his  uses,  by  which  the 
writer  in  Genesis  appears  so  wisely  to  steer 
his  course  throughout.  We  are  told  of 
**two  great  lights"  (ver.  i6);  and  one  of 


THE    CREATION  STORY. 


43 


them  is  the  moon.  The  formation  of  the 
stars  is  interjected  soon  after,  as  if  compara- 
tively insignificant.  But  the  planet-stars 
individually  are  in  themselves  far  greater 
and  more  significant  than  the  moon,  which 
is  denominated  a  great  light.  In  what  sense 
is  the  moon  a  great  light?  Only  in  virtue 
of  its  relation  to  us.  For  its  magnitude,  as 
it  is  represented  on  the  human  retina,  is  far 
larger  than  that  of  the  stars,  approaching 
that  of  the  sun ;  and  its  office  also  makes  it 
the  queen  of  the  nocturnal  heaven.  So, 
then,  the  general  upshot  is,  that  the  mention 
of  the  sun  is  introduced  at  that  point  in  the 
cosmogonic  process  when,  from  the  condi- 
tion of  our  form  and  atmosphere,  or  of  his, 
or  of  both,  he  had  become  so  definite  and 
visible  as  to  be  finally  efficient  for  his  office 
of  dividing  day  from  day,  and  year  from 
year ;  that  the  planets,  being  of  an  altogether 
secondary  importance  to  us,  simply  appear 
as  his  attendant  company ;  and  that  to  the 
moon,  a  body  in  itself  comparatively  insig- 
nificant, is  awarded  a  rather  conspicuous 
place,  which,  if  objectively  considered,  is 
out  of  proportion,  but  which  at  once  falls 
into  line  when  we  acknowledge  relativity  as 
the  basis  of  the  narrative,  by  reason  of  the 
great  importance  of  the  functions,  which 
this  satellite  discharges  on  behalf  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth. 


A.  THE   CREATION  STORY, 

Next,  it  is  alleged  that  we  have  days  with 
an  evening  and  a  morning  before  we  have  a 
sun  to  supply  a  measure  of  time  for  them. 
Doubtless  there  could  be  no  approach  to 
anything  like  an  evening  and  a  morning,  so 
long  as  light  was  uniformly  diffused.  But 
under  the  nebular  theory,  the  work  of  the 
first  day  implies  an  initial  concentration  of 
light;  and,  from  the  time  when  light  began 
to  be  thus  powerfully  concentrated,  would 
there  not  be  an  evening  and  a  morning, 
though  imperfect,  for  any  revolving  solid 
of  the  system,  according  as  it  might  be 
turned  towards,  or  from,  the  centre  of  the 
highest  luminosity? 

But  we  have  not  yet  emerged  from  the 
net  of  the  Contradictionist,  who  lays  hold 
on  the  vegetation  verses  (ii,  12)  to  im- 
peach the  credit  of  the  Creation  Story. 
The  objection  here  becomes  twofold.  First,- 
we  have  vegetation  anterior  to  the  sun;  and 
secondly,  this  is  not  merely  an  aquatic 
vegetation  for  the  support  of  aquatic  life, 
nor  merely  a  rude  and  primordial  vegeta- 
tion, such  as  that  of  and  before  the  coal- 
measures,  but  a  vegetation  complete  and 
absolute,  including  fern-grass,  then  the  herb 
yielding  seed,  and  lastly  the  fruit-tree,  yield- 
ing fruit  after  its  kind,  whose  seed  is  in 
itself.  Here  is  the  food  of  mammals  and 
even  of  man  provided,  when  neither  of  them 


THE   CREATION  STORY,  ^r 

was  created,  or  was  even  about  to  exist 
until  after  many  a  long  antecedent  stage  of 
lower  life  had  found  its  way  into  creation 
and  undertaken  its  office  there. 

First,  as  regards  vegetation  before  the 
sun's  performance  of  his  present  function  in 
the  heavens  is  announced.  There  were 
light  and  heat,  atmosphere  with  its  con- 
ditions of  moist  and  dry,  soil  prepared  to  do 
its  work  in  nutrition.  Can  there  be  ground 
for  saying  that,  with  such  provision  made, 
vegetation  could  not,  would  not,  take  place? 
Let  us,  for  argument's  sake,  suppose  that 
the  sun  could  now  recede  into  an  earlier 
condition,  could  go  back  by  some  few  stages 
of  that  process  through  which  he  became 
our  sun  ;  his  material  less  compact,  his  form 
less  defined,  his  rays  more  intercepted  by 
the  "  swaddling-band  "  of  cloud  and  vapor. 
Vegetation  might  be  modified  in  character, 
but  must  it  therefore  cease?  May  we  not 
say  that  a  far  more  violent  paradox  would 
have  been  hazarded,  and  a  sounder  objec- 
tion would  have  lain,  had  the  Mosaic  writer 
failed  to  present  to  us  at  least  an  initial 
vegetation  before  the  era  at  which  the  sun 
had  obtained  his  present  degree  of  definite- 
ness  in  spherical  form,  and  the  conditions 
for  the  transmission  of  his  rays  to  us  had 
reached  substantially  their  present  state? 

But,  then,  it  is  fairly  observed  that  the 
6 


^6  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

vegetation  as  described  is  not  preparatory 
and  initial,  but  full-formed ;  also,  that  any 
tracing  of  vegetation  anterior  to  animal 
life  in  the  strata  is  ambiguous  and  obscure. 
In  the  age  of  Protozoa,  the  earliest  living 
creatures,  the  indications  of  plants  are  not 
determinable,  according  to  the  high  author- 
ity of  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson.  It  is  observed  by 
Canon  Driver  "  that  the  proof  from  science 
of  the  existence  of  plants  before  animals  is 
inferential  and  h priori''  *  Guyot,  however, 
holds  a  directly  contrary  opinion,  and  says 
the  present  remains  indicate  a  large  pres- 
ence of  infusorial  protophytes  in  the  early 
seas.f  But  suppose  the  point  to  be  con- 
ceded. Undoubtedly,  all  ^  priori  assump- 
tions ought  in  inquiries  of  this  kind  to  be 
watched  with  the  utmost  vigilance  and  jeal- 
ousy. Still  there  are  limits,  beyond  which 
vigilance  and  jealousy  cannot  push  their 
claims.  Is  there  anything  strange  in  the 
supposition  that  the  comparatively  delicate 
composition  of  the  first  vegetable  structures 
should  have  given  way,  and  become  indis- 
cernible to  us,  amidst  the  shock  and  pres- 
sure of  firmer  and  more  durable  material  ? 
The  flesh  of  the  mammoth  has,  indeed, 
been  preserved  to  us,  and  eaten  by  dogs 

*  "  The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis,"  in   The  Ex^ositor^ 
|nnuary  1886,  p.  29.  ' 

f  "  Creation,"  x.  p.  90. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  .« 

in  our  own  time,  though  coming  down 
from  ages  which  we  have  no  means  of 
measuring;  but  then  it  was  not  exposed 
to  the  same  pressure,  and  it  subsisted 
under  conditions  of  temperature  which 
were  adequately  antiseptic.  But  has  all 
palaeozoic  life  been  ascertained  by  its 
flesh,  or  do  we  not  owe  our  knowledge  of 
many  among  the  earlier  forms  of  animated 
life  altogether  to  their  osseous  structures  ? 
And,  in  cases  where  only  bone  remains,  is 
it  an  extravagant  use  of  argument  ^  priori 
to  hold  that  there  must  have  been  flesh 
also  ?  And,  if  flesh,  why  should  not  vege- 
table matter  have  subsisted,  and  have  dis- 
appeared? Canon  Driver,  indeed, observes* 
that  from  a  very  early  date  animals  preyed 
upon  animals.  Still  the  first  animal  could 
not  prey  upon  himself;  there  must  have 
been  vegetable  pabulum,  out  of  which  an 
animal  body  was  first  developed.  "  Before 
the  beasts,"  says  Sir  George  Stokes,  "  came 
the  plants,  plants  which  are  necessary  for 
their  sustenance."t 

Next,  with  respect  to  the  objection  that 
the  vegetation  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
verses  is  a  perfected  vegetation,  and  that 
there  existed  no  such  vegetation  before 
animal  life  began.     But  why  are  we  to  sup- 

*  The  Expositor,  January,  1886,  p.  29. 
t  Letter  to  Mr.  Elflein,  Aug.  14,  1883. 


.g  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

pose  that  the  Mosaic  writer  intended  to  say 
that  such  a  vegetation  did  exist  before 
animal  hfe  began  ?  For  no  other  reason 
than  this  :  having  mentioned  the  first  intro- 
duction of  vegetable  life,  he  carries  it  on, 
without  breaking  his  narrative,  to  its  com- 
pletion. In  so  proceeding,  he  does  ex- 
actly what  the  historian  does  when,  for  the 
sake  of  clearer  comprehension,  he  brings 
one  series  of  events  from  its  inception  to 
its  close,  although  in  order  of  time  the  be- 
ginning only,  and  not  the  completion,  be- 
longs to  the  epoch  at  which  he  introduces 
it.  What  I  have  called  the  rule  of  relativ- 
ity, the  intention,  namely,  to  be  intelligible 
to  man,  seems  to  show  the  reason  of  his 
arrangement  If  his  meaning  was,  "  The 
beautiful  order  of  trees,  plants,  and  grasses 
which  you  see  around  you  had  its  first  be- 
ginnings in  the  era  when  living  creatures 
were  about  to  commence  their  movements 
in  the  waters  and  on  the  earth,  and  all  this 
was  part  of  the  fatherly  work  of  God  on  your 
behalf" — suoh  meaning  was  surely  well  ex- 
pressed, expressed  after  a  sound  and  work- 
manlike fashion,  in  the  text  of  the  Creation 
Story  as  it  stands. 

I  will  next  notice  the  objection  that  the 
Mosaic  writer  takes  (according  to  the  re- 
ceived version)  no  notice  of  the  great  age 
of  reptiles,  but  proceeds  at  once  from  the 


THE   CREATION  STORY, 


49 


creation  of  marine  animals  (ver.  20)  to  the 
fowl  that  may  "  fly  above  the  earth  in  the 
open  firmament  of  heaven."  He  thus 
passes  over  without  notice  the  amphibians, 
the  reptiles  proper,  the  insects,  and  the 
marsupial  or  early  mammals,  on  his  way  to 
the  birds.  It  is  added  that  he  brackets  the 
birds  with  the  fishes,  and  thus  makes  them 
of  the  same  date. 

It  is  requisite  here  to  observe,  with  re- 
spect to  birds,  that  Professor  Dana  *  writes 
of  the  narrative  \\\  Genesis  as  follows : 
speaking  of  the  relation  between  the  Mo- 
saic narrative  and  the  ascertained  facts  of 
science,  he  uses  these  words  :  **  The  accord- 
ance is  exact  with  the  succession  made  out 
for  the  earliest  species  of  these  grand  di- 
visions, if  we  except  the  division  of  birds, 
about  which  there  is  doubt." 

Owen,  however,  in  his  '*  Palaeontology,'*  f 
places  animal  life  in  six  classes,  according 
to  the  following  order,  namely — 

I.  Invertebrates.  4,  Birds. 

a.   I'ishes.  5.  Maiumals. 

3.  Reptiles.  6.   Man. 

In  the  more  recent  **  Manual "  of  Profes- 


*  *•  Creation,"  as  before,  p.  215. 
t  Second  edition,  1S61,  p.  5. 


CO  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

sor  Prestwich  (1886)  the  order  of  seniority 
stands  as  follows : — 

1.  Cryptogamous  Plants.  4.  Mammals. 

2.  Fishes.  5.  Man. 

3.  Birds. 

In  the  "  Manual  "  *  of  Etheridge  we  are 
supplied  with  the  following  series,  after 
fishes:  I.  Fossil  reptiles.  2.  Ornithosauria; 
^^ flying  animals,  zvhicJi  combined  the  charac- 
ter of  reptiles  with  those  of  birds y  3.  The 
first  birds  of  the  secondary  rocks,  with 
**  feathers  in  all  respects  similar  to  those  of 
existing  birds."     4.  Mammals. 

It  thus  appears  that  much  turns  on  the 
definition  of  a  bird,  and  that,  in  this  point 
as  in  others,  it  is  hard,  on  the  evidence 
thus  presented,  seriously  to  impeach  the 
character  of  the  Creation  Story.  Largely 
viewed,  the  place  of  birds,  as  an  order  in 
creation,  is  given  us  by  our  scientific  teach- 
ers, or,  as  I  have  shown,  by  many  and  rec- 
ognized authorities  among  them,  between 
fishes  and  the  class  of  mammals.  It  is  a 
gratuitous  assumption  that  the  Mosaist  in- 
tends to  assign  to  them  the  same  date  as 
fishes ;  he  places  them  in  the  same  day,  but 
then  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  he  more 
than  once  gives  several  actions  to  the  same 

*  Phillips's  **  Manual  of  Geology,"  part  ii.,  by  R. 
Etheridge,  F.  R.  S.,  chap.  xxv.  pp.  511-520. 


THE   CREATION  STORY,  j-j 

day.  He  sets  them  after  the  fishes  ;  and  the 
fairer  construction  surely  is,  not  that  they 
were  contemporaneous,  but  that  they  were 
subsequent.  He  forbears,  it  is  true,  to 
notice  amphibious  reptiles,  insects,  and 
marsupials.  And  why?  All  these,  va- 
riously important  in  themselves,  fill  no 
large  place,  some  of  them  no  place  at  all, 
in  the  view  and  in  the  concerns  of  primitive 
man ;  and,  having  man  for  his  object,  he 
forbears,  on  his  guiding  principle  of  rela- 
tivity, to  incumber  his  narrative  with  them. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  demarcation  of  the 
order  of  birds  in  creation  is  less  sharply 
drawn  than  that  (for  example)  of  fishes  and 
of  mammals,  may  we  not  be  permitted  to 
trace  a  singular  propriety  in  the  diminution, 
so  to  speak,  of  emphasis  with  which  the 
Mosaist  gives  to  their  introduction  a  more 
qualified  distinctness  of  outline,  by  simply 
subjoining  them  (ver.  20)  to  the  aquatic 
creation. 

I  have  now  made  bold  to  touch  on 
the  principal  objections  popularly  known. 
They  run  into  details  which  it  has  not  been 
possible  fully  to  notice,  but  which  seem  to 
be  without  force,  except  such  as  they  de- 
rive from  the  illegitimate  process  of  hold- 
ing down  the  Mosaic  writer  in  his  narra- 
tion, so  short,  so  simple,  so  sublime,  by 
restraints    which    the    ordinary   historian, 


^2  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

though  he  has  plenty  of  auxiliary  expedi- 
ents, and  is  under  no  restraint  of  space, 
finds  himself  obliged  to  shake  off  if  he 
wishes  to  be  understood.  On  the  intro- 
duction of  the  great  or  recent  mammals, 
and  of  man,  as  the  objector  is  silent,  I  re- 
main silent  also. 

It  would  be  uncandid,  however,  not  to 
notice  the  "  creeping  thing"  of  verses  24,  25, 
and  26.  In  these  verses  the  **  creeping 
thing"  is  distinguished  from  cattle,  and  un- 
doubtedly appears  upon  the  scene  as  if  it 
were  a  formation  wholly  new.  If  the 
Mosaist  really  intended  to  convey  that  this 
was  the  first  appearance  of  the  creeping 
thing  in  creation,  there  is  I  suppose  no 
doubt  that  he  is  at  war  with  the  firmly 
established  witness  of  natural  science. 
Guyot.  indeed,  says*  that  these  creeping 
things  are  not  reptiles,  but  are  the  smaller 
mammals,  rats,  mice,  and  the  like.  If,  how- 
ever, the  common  rendering  be  maintained, 
it  may  be  just  worth  while  to  suggest  a 
possible  explanation.  It  is  as  follows. 
These  creeping  things  were  a  very  minor 
fact  in  the  scheme  of  creation ;  so  that  the 
purpose  of  the  relator,  and  the  comparative 
importance  of  the  facts  may  here,  as  else- 
where, govern  his  mode  of  handling  them. 
It  is  fit  to  be  observed  that  he  never  men- 

*  **  Creation,"  p.  120. 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  ^^ 

tions  insects  at  all,  as  if  they  were  too  insig- 
nificant to  find  a  place  among  the  larger 
items  of  his  account;  as  if  he  advisedly 
selected  his  materials,  and  sifted  off  the  less 
important  among  them.  And  there  does 
seem  to  be  some  license  or  looseness  in  his 
method  of  treating  these  creeping  things; 
for  while  he  severs  them  from  fish,  fowl,  and 
beast,  in  the  verses  I  have  named,  and  again 
in  verse  30  from  fowl  and  from  beast,  yet  in 
verse  28,  when  the  great  charter  of  dominion 
is  granted  to  man,  he  sums  up  in  three 
divisions  only,  and  makes  man  the  lord 
*'  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that 
moveth  upon  the  earth."  Reptiles  appear 
to  have  passed  out  of  his  view,  either  wholly, 
or  so  far  as  not  to  deserve  separate  mention, 
and  it  may  seem  likely  that  he  did  not  think 
their  importance  such  as  to  call  for  a  par- 
ticular and  defined  place,  and,  while  accord- 
ing to  them  incidental  mention,  did  not 
mean  to  give  them  such  a  place,  in  the  chron- 
ological order  of  creation.  Let  the  Contra- 
dictionist  make  the  most  he  can  out  of  this 
secondary  matter:  it  will  not  greatly  avail. 
If,  on  the  whole,  such  be  a  fair  statement 
of  arguments  and  results,  we  may  justly 
render  our  thanks  to  Dana,  Guyot,*  Davv- 

*  In  the  preface  to  Guyot's  "  Creation  "  will  be  found 
some  account  of  the  recent  literature  of  this  subject.     I 


54 


THE   CREATION  STORY. 


son,  Stokes,  and  other  scientific  authorities, 
who  seem  to  find  no  cause  for  supporting 
the  broad  theory  of  contradiction.  I  am 
well  aware  of  my  inabihty  to  add  an  atom 
of  weight  to  their  judgments.  Yet  I  have 
ventured  to  attempt  applying  to  this  great 
case  what  I  hold  to  be  the  just  laws  of  a 
narrative  intended  to  instruct  and  to  per- 
suade, and  thus  finding  a  key  to  the  true 
construction  of  the  Chapter.  For  myself, 
I  cannot  but  at  present  remain  before  and 
above  all  things  impressed  with  the  profound 
and  marvellous  wisdom,  that  has  guided 
the  human  instrument,  whether  it  were  pen 
or  tongue,  which  was  first  commissioned 
from  on  high,  to  hand  onwards  for  our  ad- 
miration and  instruction  this  wonderful,  this 
unparalleled  relation.  If  I  am  a  **  recon- 
ciler," I  shall  not  call  myself  a  mere  apolo- 
gist, for  I  aim  at  a  positive,  not  merely  a 
defensive  result,  and  claim  that  my  reader 
should  feel  how  true  it  is  that  in  this  brief 
relation  he  possesses  an  inestimable  treasure. 
And  I  submit  to  those,  who  may  have 
closely  followed  my  remarks,  that  my  words 

must  also  mention  a  valuable  pamphlet  entitled  **  The 
Hijjher  Criticism,"  by  Mr.  Rust,  Rector  of  Westerfield, 
Suffolk.  It  sets  forth  the  scope  of  the  negative  criticism 
at  large,  and  recommends  (p.  30)  to  "  have  patience  for 
a  while,  and  wait  to  see  the  issue."  Similar  advice  has, 
I  understand,  been  given  in  the  recent  Charge  of  the 
learned  Bishop  of  Oxford. 


THE    CREATION  STORY.  r- 

were  not  wholly  idle  words,  when,  without 
presuming  to  lay  down  any  universal  and 
inflexible  proposition,  and  without  question- 
ing any  single  contention  of  persons  specially 
qualified,  I  said  that  the  true  question  was 
whether  the  words  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  in 
his  opening  chapter,  taken  as  a  whole,  do 
not  stand,  according  to  our  present  knowl- 
edge, in  such  a  relation  to  the  facts  of  nature 
as  to  warrant  and  require,  thus  far,  the  con- 
clusion that  theOrdainer  of  Nature,  and  the 
Giver  or  Guide  of  the  Creation  Story,  are 
One  and  the  Same. 


Postscript  to  the  Creation  Story. 

[Mankind  have  travelled  not  by  one  but 
by  several  roads  into  polytheism.  It  took 
a  thousand  years  from  the  institution  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation  to  place  the  chosen  peo- 
ple in  a  state  of  security  from  this  insidious 
mischief.  But  all  along  a  powerful  appara- 
tus of  means  had  been  at  work,  which  was 
strengthened  from  time  to  time  as  Divine 
Providence  saw  fit.  The  foundation,  how- 
ever, had  been  laid  in  the  Creation  Story. 
It  was  impossible  for  those  who  received  it 
either  to  travel  or  to  glide  into  polytheism 
by  either  of  the  widest  roads  then  open,  the 


c6  THE   CREATION  STORY. 

system  of  Nature-worship,  and  the  deifica- 
tion of  heroes.  No  one  could  make  the 
Sun  his  God,  who  really  believed  that  there 
was  a  God  who  created  the  Sun.  Even 
more  perhaps  was  it  needful  that  the  line 
should  be  clearly  and  sharply  drawn  between 
Deity  and  humanity,  and  that  a  barrier  not 
capable  of  being  surmounted  should  exclude 
kings  and  heroes  from  deification.  In  the 
Homeric  or  Olympian  system,  the  worship 
of  inanimate  nature  was  studiously  shut 
out ;  but  the  beginnings  of  deification  are 
visible  in  the  case  of  Heracles,*  whose  very 
self  (auroj)  sits  at  the  banquets  of  the  Im- 
mortals, and  of  the  twin  brothers,  Castor 
and  Pollux,  who  live  and  die  on  alternate 
days,  and  who,  when  they  live,  receive 
honors  like  the  gods.  In  the  height  of 
their  civilization  the  Romans  set  up  their 
living  Emperors  as  divinities.  But  neither 
they  nor  the  Greeks  believed  in  the  creation 
of  man  by  the  Almighty.  The  old  cosmog- 
onies of  the  heathen  placed  matter  and 
other  impersonal  entities  in  a  position  of 
priority  to  their  gods,  who  merely  take 
their  turn  to  come  upon  the  scene.  Only 
(I  believe)  in  the  Hebrew  story  is  the  Deity 
anterior,  without  which  condition  He  cannot 
be  supreme. 

Besides   being  anterior,  He  is  separate. 

*  Od.  xi.  302-5. 


THE   CREATION  STORY.  ry 

Did  we  find  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment a  story  of  deification,  we  should  at 
once  know  it  to  be  spurious,  because  in 
contradiction,  alike  as  to  letter  and  as  to 
spirit,  of  the  entire  context. 

It  is,  I  hope,  not  presumptuous  to  proceed 
a  step  further  and  to  say  that  this  broad  and 
effectual  severance  was  necessary  not  only 
for  the  Old  dispensation,  but  for  the  New : 
not  only  for  the  exclusion  of  idolatry  in  all 
its  forms,  but  for  the  establishment  of  the 
Incarnation.  A  marriage  would  be  no 
marriage,  unless  the  individuality  of  the 
parties  to  it  were  determinate  and  inefface- 
able. The  Christian  dogma  of  the  two 
natures  in  one  Person  would  be  in  no  sense 
distinctive,  if  it  had  been  habitual  in  the 
preparatory  dispensation,  as  in  some  of  the 
religions  outside  it,  for  man  properly  so- 
called  to  pass  into  proper  deity.  Reunion 
was  to  be  effected  between  the  Almighty 
and  His  prime  earthly  creature  by  the  bridge 
to  be  constructed  over  that  flood,  the  flood 
of  sin,  which  parted  them  ;  and,  to  sustain 
that  bridge,  it  was  needful  that  the  natures 
to  be  brought  into  union  should  stand  apart 
like  piers  perfectly  defined,  each  on  its  own 
separate  and  solid  foundation.  And  the 
firm  foundations  of  those  piers  were  laid,  to 
endure  throughout  all  time,  by  the  great 
Creation  Story.] 


3U/ 


2 

u 

h 
Q 

< 

a 
u 

C 

4 


MAR  5     1970 


W^ 


^ 


^^ 


^ 


iiOVl619704g 


LD  21A-50m-8,'61 
(Cl795sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


U  (,   \){  Hh 


illlilllill 


III 


CDM7mDbll 


